One third support 'some torture'

[Wilse]

iamaboringperson wrote:
I support some tourture.

Congratulations!
:pint:

You win the most predictable response of the thread award. ;-)

[Wilse]

nicholas wrote:

iamaboringperson wrote:
I support some tourture. In a world that is as it is you need some threat to wrong doers.

I believe paedo's should be tortued to death.

Only 'paedos'?

[Wilse]

Cyberus wrote:
I am wholeheartedly against this, or any form of physical harm of others.

Same here.

[Wilse]

nicholas wrote:

Wilse wrote:

Cyberus wrote:
I am wholeheartedly against this, or any form of physical harm of others.

Same here.

You will change your mind once you have children.

Nonsense.

[Wilse]

Cyberus wrote:
I don't see it as 'acceptable, providing we attach x,y and z conditions', I see it as wrong. Full stop.

Same goes for the death penalty, even if it is a 'paedo in speedos' or whatever, its wrong. Sure, if I had a child and someone sexually abused him/her I would want revenge, but at that point I couldn't make an objective decision about such things anymore....

Exactly.

[Wilse]

You'll see.

Not likely mate. I'm 34 and still don't want kids. My g/f is 36 and has a ten year old daughter.

To parahprase Prot in K-Pax:

Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Let me tell you something. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity.

And I'm baffled as to why you think Sharia would help over our existing laws, in the case of a relative who cannot see things objectively.

[Wilse]

mr_a500 wrote:

Every being in the universe knows right from wrong.
Let me tell you something. You humans, most of you, subscribe to this policy of an eye for an eye, a life for a life, which is known throughout the universe for its... stupidity.

Unfortunately, this is nonsense. Most beings that we know of (life on Earth), ruthlessly do whatever is necessary for their own survival. "Right and wrong" or "fairness" is a human invention.

Agreed - I should've cropped the first sentence from that quote.

The point I meant to highlight was that "an eye for an eye" is stupid.

What are your thoughts on that?

[Wilse]

nicholas wrote:

Wilse wrote:

You'll see.

Not likely mate. I'm 34 and still don't want kids. My g/f is 36 and has a ten year old daughter.

Never say never! ;-)

That's why I said 'not likely'. ;-)
 

And I'm baffled as to why you think Sharia would help over our existing laws, in the case of a relative who cannot see things objectively.

This fella is more eloquent than I

And he contradicts himself: "Islam shows a way to have no robbery"?
If that were true, why are people still having their hands and heads cut off in Suadi?
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/issues/dp.html

Sadiq 'Abd al-Karim Mal Allah, a Saudi Arabian Shi'a Muslim, was executed in 1992. Neither he nor his family knew that he was under sentence of death or for what "crime" he had been convicted. He was apparently charged with smuggling a copy of the Bible into Saudi Arabia. He denied the charge, but was reportedly requested to convert to Wahabism, an interpretation of Islam favoured by the state. When he refused, the judge was reported to have told him: "You abandon your rejectionist belief or I will kill you." On 3 September 1992 he was publicly beheaded in al-Qatif.

If this is in any way representative of your preferred "Shariah", I'm afraid I'd have to ask you to stick it up yer erse, sideways. ;-)

If get on the sleeper to Glasgow tonight, and rape your girlfriend and daughter, then murder them slowly.

Why should I not be put to death?

There are several problems with this but I'll touch on two:
1. Other than some primitive revenge fulfillment, how would that be in any way a better solution for society at large than locking you up until you die?
2. How, if you wish to implement the death penalty, do you ensure that no one is ever wrongly convicted?

[Wilse]

Cyberus wrote:

Agafaster wrote:

I get on the sleeper to Glasgow tonight, and rape your girlfriend and daughter, then murder them slowly.

Why should I not be put to death?

what if you arent the right person?
espousing the death sentence is one thing, but you have to be really really REALLY sure you actually have the perpetrator, and that the perpetrator really did the things he was accused of.

besides, in the belief systems of those who have no god, or promise of afterlife, sentient life is sacrosanct and precious, and who has the right to take away someone elses life?

I couldn't have said this better myself

Hear hear!
:pint:

[Wilse]

@Eyso:

Me too.

[Wilse]

@Karlos:

The problem with the latter is that eventually you reach saturation; there simply isn't room to house criminals. Consequently, very few people are imprisoned for "life". You can't rely on imprisonment as a punishment for all serious crimes and if you did, what would you do for all the lesser crimes where imprisonment for a period of time would be the best punishment?

When convicted murderers/paedophiles etc walk free from prison only to commit whatever crime they were imprisoned for again, what are you going to do?

Well the glib, catch-all answer is: BUILD MORE GAOLS! ;-)
I am, of course, aware that it is not that simple but I hardly think lack of existing prison room is an excuse to murder/execute people.
You could take such thinking to the extreme of it being a solution to the housing problem.

I do think that there are some crimes for which the death penalty ought to be considered as an option, but it would have to rely on the soundest possible conviction.

I used to agree but I've slowly come to believe that no human has the right to take the life of another human.

[Wilse]

@Karlos:

In both cases the person is dead and found innocent afterwards. Granted it's less likely in the life imprisonment case

Yet you still appear to favour the death penalty? Strikes me as a little illogical.
I'm sure we're all agreed that no system is perfect but you seem to be justifying the worst method by merely stating the other isn't a "much" better option. Sort of a "Hey, (s)he'll probably die in gaol anyway, so we might as well hang/behead/gas/electrocute/etc, him/her now."
If there is a false conviction, you say yourself there's more chance of partially rectifying it with the prison sentence.
Surely we should be striving towards the best option available?

Furthermore, a prisoner can still have a life of sorts. They can usually read, excercise, play musical instruments, etc.

In both cases the person is dead and found innocent afterwards.

So, whilst the above statement is true, you can surely agree that there's a bit more to it than that? If I'd been wrongly convicted, I'd far rather a life sentence, where I can hope for justice to eventually prevail, whilst still trying to have some sort of existence, than be murdered by the state, only for them to later say, "Oops!"

[Wilse]

In doing so, they overlook that people can still die in prison whilst wrongly convicted

I disagree with your conclusion here. Most people I know who have this view are well aware of this but, far from overlooking it, accept it as the lesser of two evils.

I'd also like to point out here that, whilst I disagree with capital punishment in any circumstance, I don't neccessarily fall into the "life should mean life" category either. Each case should be considered on merit.

so what is the ideal?

There is none.

[Wilse]

Karlos wrote:

Most people I know who have this view are well aware of this but, far from overlooking it, accept it as the lesser of two evils

I personally find that view a touch hypocritical, really. Either way you have destroyed someones life beyond repair, the only difference is how long you dragged it out for.
Even when some guy is lucky enough to be released, you can't give them back their life if they were incarcerated for decades.

True but a huge pile of cash (the usual outcome) can certainly soften the blow and would, in most cases, be infinitely preferable to death.
This, again, would be the lesser fo two evils.
And I see little, if any hypocrisy in saying so.

If you think there is absolutely no difference between these two situations (and I'd be extremely surprised if you do) there's probably nothing I can say to convince you.

I'd also like to point out here that, whilst I disagree with capital punishment in any circumstance, I don't neccessarily fall into the "life should mean life" category either

A rational view. I absolutely agree that each case should be judged on its own merit. Where we differ is that I also think that life imprisonment and the death penalty should both be available should the case merit it, despite the risk carried. However, they would have to be the last resort in a situation when there is no reasonable doubt, thereby minimising that risk of wrongful life imprisonment or execution as far as is possible.[/quote]

And how do we go about ensuring the risk is minimised.
Look at Texas, where the risk is supposedly minimised. ;-)

[Wilse]

Agafaster wrote:

I guess we have to agree to disagree on the subject.

good idea, I think we've done this to death already. :horse:

Hahaha... fair enough.

drink ? :lotsacoffee: [/quote]

Aye, why not?
:pint: